Bob,
Was it added as a generic term for any type of binding (e.g. tape, coil
binding, plastic comb) without identifying the bound edge ? I am not aware
of the value 'bind' being used for "finishings" in any implementation. Any
Printer that offers finishing normally describes the type of finishing with
a specific value instead of the generic 'bind'. (see
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.1.pdf
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.1.pdf> ) This spec resolves
the bind location but still does not qualify the type of binding. Do we
need to add some new values/qualifiers to the PWG model?
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-30E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herriot [mailto:bob at herriot.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 3:58 AM
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> The "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute
An issue has come up in another standards effort which is trying to map IPP
attributes.
The question is about the "bind" value of the IPP "finishings" attribute. It
is the least specific value of "finishings".
Does anyone remember why the "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute was
put into IPP?
Does anyone implement it?
Bob Herriot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20020520/66dc73dc/attachment.html